In Homer's The Iliad, the reader comes to understand why the different parties fight and what they are aiming to achieve. It's not a pretty picture, but it's understandable and it makes a powerful, enduring and universal story. The following three movies do the same, and they go "the whole hog." Turner Movie Classics is airing the first one: Gillo Pontecorvo's La battaglia di Algeri / The Battle of Algiers / La bataille d'Alger (1966/1967). We see what motivates opposing forces, we see tactics, strategy, policy, and (brutal) consequences.
Should we remain in Algeria? If you answer "yes," then you must accept all the necessary consequences.
The enduring importance of this history-based fictional film should be obvious. This is the real deal. I haven't been able to see and process all the recent documentaries about Iraq and Afghanistan, but somehow I doubt more than a fraction of them are able to show all sides with such clarity.
The other two, along the same lines: Pontecorvo's Queimada / Burn! (1969), set in the Caribbean, and Moustapha Akkad's Lion of the Desert (1981), set in Libya.
Rage -- Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles,
murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses, hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls,
great fighters' souls, but made their bodies carrion,
feasts for the dogs and birds,
and the will of Zeus was moving toward its end.
(Robert Fagles' translation from the Greek).
Today's Rune: Defense.
2 comments:
Accept the consequences. And there you have war in a nutshell.
Have never seen any of these-only war movies with a definite preference for one side.
Post a Comment